That's ludicrous because first bikes are in their own lane and by your logic, the simple action of a car driver putting on their indicator precludes every cyclist from passing it, whilst each is in their own lane. You have an interesting POV that cannot work in the reality of everyday road use

(1) The 'bike lane' stops at the intersection. However, your 'own lane' theory is interesting because all bikes could then bunch up at the lights without illegally overtaking the front vehicle (already sitting there). Bikes that then took off/kept up with the front vehicle would then effectively have right of way over the front vehicle turning left because they had not overtaken to the left of the vehicle. (2) I never said an indicator precludes every cyclist from passing it - quite the opposite. And if (to take my theory further) the front vehicle chose (or was forced - except by bikes illegally overtaking it) to merely sit at the front with its indicator on - I'd argue that it was no longer actually 'turning left' and bikes would therefore be free to pass on its left.

Last edited by dontazame on Wed Oct 31, 2012 10:01 am, edited 1 time in total.

dontazame wrote:Please quote the section that allows a motor vehicle to drive on a 'bike lane' if it is not 'necessary' to do so.

don't need to, you already did, it has been discussed on previous pages of this thread when a non bicycle road user can use a bike lane.

When cycling enthusiasts are confused about how bike lanes operate and the rules an requirements surrounding them you know something is wrong. We need better education and more clarity to all road users about the operation of bike lanes.

With regard to these discussions Oxford is correct. That said there are many bike lanes which aren't bike lanes. So therefore in those cases are passing cyclists in the wrong? In practice I rarely if ever pass left turning cars on the left no matter what lane they are in.

quite tricky, I know as a driver, I don't drive in the bike lane when turning left cause i find that too close to the curb.

As a rider Ill "give way" to cars indicating to turn left. As if they where in the lane. Hasn't always been this way but after a few close calls and thinking about it as a driver, I have conceded this is best.

obviously not talking about those who indicate the same time they turn left.

Driver passes you, him 20kph faster than you when approaching from behind . By the time he at the corner you have only slowed down from 30kph to 25 and ready to go thru that corner at not much less. The driver is down to 15kph is he is in a hurry. Yep - cyclist will almost always close on the driver in front.

Next time you are a passenger in a car with a fairly agressive driver watch the speedo thru the whole approach and turn. You will be surprised at how slowly cornering in a car is.

One bit of advice I offer to all new riders seeking it is to NOT indicate left off a road until you are almost on the corner if there is a driver behind. For exactly the situation that you experienced. Left tunrs are reserved only to let drivers entering from the left as a courtesy to them. Be safe first, worry about legal niceties some other time.

ColinOldnCranky wrote:One bit of advice I offer to all new riders seeking it is to NOT indicate left off a road until you are almost on the corner if there is a driver behind. For exactly the situation that you experienced. Left tunrs are reserved only to let drivers entering from the left as a courtesy to them. Be safe first, worry about legal niceties some other time.

+1......but....

I'd go further - I almost never indicate a left-hand turn, for just this reason. It is not legally required and usually makes not a patch of difference at all to any drivers, behind or ahead. Only when there is a car entering from the left-turn side-street and the road is clear behind (as observed in my rear-view mirror) will I indicate, out of courtesy to the driver waiting.

ColinOldnCranky wrote:One bit of advice I offer to all new riders seeking it is to NOT indicate left off a road until you are almost on the corner if there is a driver behind. For exactly the situation that you experienced. Left tunrs are reserved only to let drivers entering from the left as a courtesy to them. Be safe first, worry about legal niceties some other time.

+1......but....

I'd go further - I almost never indicate a left-hand turn, for just this reason. It is not legally required and usually makes not a patch of difference at all to any drivers, behind or ahead. Only when there is a car entering from the left-turn side-street and the road is clear behind (as observed in my rear-view mirror) will I indicate, out of courtesy to the driver waiting.

In these scenarios are you in a car or on a bike? I thought bike (which I understand), but you mention your rear view mirror, therefore it sounds like you are in a car...hence indicating left is compulsory and expected from other road users.

wizdofaus wrote:Just curious...is there a recognised method of marking a bike lane so that cars must not STOP in it (i.e., they must leave room for cyclists to move up to the front of the intersection), but do have right of way to cross it for turning?

There is http://goo.gl/maps/t8NcA of course, which is usually pretty full of cyclists around peak hour. Seems like an accident waiting to happen, but not sure what the stats are.

Apart from the narrowness of the left turn lane, that is essentially the best solution. Vehicles have to give way to cross the cycle lane (assuming it is signed as such) but cyclists are still able to freely pass stopped vehicles and reach the stop line.

Where there's no room for that, the second best solution is that the left lane becomes a general traffic lane and the green paint clearly marks the cycle lane approach, so vehicle drivers know to give way when entering the newly created lane.

Unfortunately the Perth treatment is generally rubbish/dangerous, either:1. Cycle lane (more likely to be a sealed shoulder, but I digress) terminates where the second vehicle lane is created, either with a solid or broken white line. This requires cyclists to give way to vehicles, even to proceed straight ahead, even though that makes no sense.2. Cycle lane (more likely to be a sealed shoulder, but I disgree) continues right up to the stop line with vehicles turning left across the cycle lane. In very low traffic scenarios there's a bit of give and take between motorists and cyclists so it is manageable, in peak periods or higher volume or speed roads, it's pretty horrible. (Parry St, Fremantle, at High St, says hi)

Last edited by wellington_street on Thu Nov 08, 2012 12:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Oxford wrote:no such thing as right of way, you are allowed to give way, but no road user has a right of way over another.

Most people use the term "right of way" to describe the driver/cyclist etc who is required to be given way to. Of course, there is always the duty of care to avoid a collision if possible, however when discussing the road rules it's perfectly reasonable to use the term right of way for these situations. The only other suitable term would be "priority" (and traffic engineers refer to intersections as "priority controlled" if they don't have signals or a roundabout).

wellington_street wrote:2. Cycle lane (more likely to be a sealed shoulder, but I disgree) continues right up to the stop line with vehicles turning left across the cycle lane. In very low traffic scenarios there's a bit of give and take between motorists and cyclists so it is manageable, in peak periods or higher volume or speed roads, it's pretty horrible. (Parry St, Fremantle, at High St, says hi)

wellington_street wrote:2. Cycle lane (more likely to be a sealed shoulder, but I disgree) continues right up to the stop line with vehicles turning left across the cycle lane. In very low traffic scenarios there's a bit of give and take between motorists and cyclists so it is manageable, in peak periods or higher volume or speed roads, it's pretty horrible. (Parry St, Fremantle, at High St, says hi)

This is pretty much the same type of road marking I was referring to. It basically asks motorist to turn left from the middle lane across a lane that goes straight ahead. That to me sound very, very dumb!Would this happen if it was a normal road lane?? No way. So why do it to a bike lane. It is asking for accidents.The photo that wizdofaus linked to was easier for all to understand.If there is not enough room for that many lanes then get rid of the bike lane Then the normal rules about bikes passing cars on the left etc. applies.

uppo75 wrote: It basically asks motorist to turn left from the middle lane across a lane that goes straight ahead. That to me sound very, very dumb!

No, not so dumb at all. It's what is done in other parts of the world. While the traffic volumes are different, drivers in Copenhagen have simply been forced to learn that they have a duty to give way. Australian drivers have a big learning path to follow but it is not insurmountable.

uppo75 wrote:If there is not enough room for that many lanes then get rid of the bike lane

uppo75 wrote:If there is not enough room for that many lanes then get rid of the bike lane

"Get orf the road ya mug!!"

At what point did I say get bikes off the road

If these new style painted green bike lanes confuse the cyclist who use them, what hope does the non-riding motorist have??It seems that responders to this topic are divided on how to use them.If these painted lanes were not there, then the standard road rules apply- ie not pass turning cars with their left indicator on.In QLD, I can enter a green bike lane to turn left,- my interpretation from this- http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/Safety/Queens ... rules.aspxAushikers intersection has a left arrow painted on the road lane, so I guess that I would have to turn from outside of the bike lane. Are the councils making all these different road markings up, or is there a set of standards they have to conform to??Does anybody know anyone in the government, in each state, to give us an exact ruling on these new types of lanes.

The video of Copenhagen was interesting to see. I'm sure, that when they brought in all their cycling infrastructure years ago, there was a lot of information given out to the public on how to use it all.

uppo75 wrote:If there is not enough room for that many lanes then get rid of the bike lane

Subtext at work

.

uppo75 wrote:If these painted lanes were not there, then the standard road rules apply- ie not pass turning cars with their left indicator on

It is quite legal to pass on the left of a vehicle, even if their indicator is flashing. Just not if the vehicle is actually turning. Check the road rules. The logical follow-on from this is that at times a vehicle about to turn left (but not actually turning) may have to watch out for and give way to a cyclist on their left - what you claim is the problem these lanes cause.

It is not the lanes, or the road rules that cause this 'problem', but rather the arrogant, must-get-past-cyclist attitude of many motorists. A bit of care, concern and patience goes a long way.

Care - to be aware of other vehicles, ahead behind and alongside you (your legal obligation)Concern - to give a damn about others' welfarePatience - to be prepared to wait a bit to avoid a collision or conflict

BTW, I do not advocate passing on the left as a safe strategy. But it is legal, and many cyclists will do it.

uppo75 wrote:Are the councils making all these different road markings up, or is there a set of standards they have to conform to??Does anybody know anyone in the government, in each state, to give us an exact ruling on these new types of lanes.

In Victoria Vicroads Cyclenotes are the guidance and closest thing to a design standard, but I don't believe they are mandatory. This one covers bicycle lanes. It will not provide you with all you desire though. This book is the bible for traffic engineers, but I'll let you buy it.

il padrone wrote:It is quite legal to pass on the left of a vehicle, even if their indicator is flashing. Just not if the vehicle is actually turning. Check the road rules.

It varies by state - Aushiker's example photo is from WA where it is illegal to pass a vehicle on the left if it has its left indicator on.

il padrone wrote:It is not the lanes, or the road rules that cause this 'problem', but rather the arrogant, must-get-past-cyclist attitude of many motorists. A bit of care, concern and patience goes a long way.

Same could be said about the attitude of must get past vehicle attitude of cyclists. It goes both ways.

Essentially the problems arise when either party wants to get in front. If vehicle and cyclist arrive at the conflict point and maintain their position, rather than trying to pass, no problem occurs.

The behaviour suggested for car drivers - i.e. entering the bicycle lane before turning left - attempts to remove this conflict as it prevents cyclists from trying to nearside pass and makes it clear what the vehicle's intentions are.

The reason I dislike the lanes that continue all the way to the stop line is that they lull motorists and cyclists into a false sense of security and don't adequately warn of the conflict point. The shared vehicle and cyclist lane set up is much better (as long as the approach from the cycle lane is marked properly) because it makes the conflict point very clear and relocates it from the stop line to a merge area on the approach.

The QLD example shown here is not something I have ever encountered on a bike or in the car but it has obviously been designed with these concerns in mind. Seems like an appropriate method of dealing with it - the green maintains the legitimacy of the cycle lane while making it clear that a motorist entering it must give way.

More importantly - there needs to be some serious publicity and education given to this for both drivers and cyclists. If we on a bicycle forum can't quite reach a consensus on it, what hope has your average motorist got?

il padrone wrote:It is quite legal to pass on the left of a vehicle, even if their indicator is flashing. Just not if the vehicle is actually turning. Check the road rules.

It varies by state - Aushiker's example photo is from WA where it is illegal to pass a vehicle on the left if it has its left indicator on.

Hence why I said check the road rules. Most states allow passing on the left of a vehicle stuck in traffic with their indicator blinking but going nowhere I believe.

wellington_street wrote:

il padrone wrote:It is not the lanes, or the road rules that cause this 'problem', but rather the arrogant, must-get-past-cyclist attitude of many motorists. A bit of care, concern and patience goes a long way.

Same could be said about the attitude of must get past vehicle attitude of cyclists. It goes both ways.

wellington_street wrote:The QLD example shown here is not something I have ever encountered on a bike or in the car but it has obviously been designed with these concerns in mind. Seems like an appropriate method of dealing with it - the green maintains the legitimacy of the cycle lane while making it clear that a motorist entering it must give way.

Thanks for sharing the link. I really like the treatment shown in this graphic ...

Aushiker wrote:I ride a section of road that is just like this (Freeway entrance) sans the green markings. I generally have a good run but a clearly delineated "cycle lane" would help make it clearer that cyclists are here. I am referring to heading west on Hodges Drive, Joondalup at the entrance to the Freeway entrance.

That's not the same situation.

In your example, the cycle lane is continuous and not shared. The TMR example is where there is insufficient room for a separate vehicle left turn and a separate cycle lane, so the two must share a lane on approach to the intersection. The TMR example would be used on, for example, Curtin Avenue (e.g. here instead of terminating the shoulder).

The green paint is a really visible and great way to establish a cyclist space... it says to drivers that a rider will be there in the future, even if there is none right now. It's a bit hard sometimes to work out what is going on. I wouldn't rely on the green to define safe though.

Who is online

About the Australian Cycling Forums

The largest cycling discussion forum in Australia for all things bike; from new riders to seasoned bike nuts, the Australian Cycling Forums are a welcoming community where you can ask questions and talk about the type of bikes and cycling topics you like.